A place for violence

[Kyriakos]

In the introduction of the players there was UCLP...Under Cover Loss Prevention.

Presence of the kid, the job of the UCLP...context for the situation that I think gives it a different flavor from "random jerk just being a jerk."

As to your conclusion, that's really what is being explored. Is it really obvious that violence won't help anyone? Most specifically the employee.

And what constitutes violence in the first place? Consider, what will the UCLP recover from faster, a bloody nose or a lass of his job? Is this jerk not trying to harm him? Harm him even more than he could by just up and hitting him in the nose?

Hm, I suppose i am not really seeing it as plausible that anyone would be so confident he will get away from punching someone, just cause the other person is black. Let alone with a witness around. Jerks are jerks, but to do what you theorise would happen it would need to be an insane person, not merely a jerk, cause he very likely would end up in jail and sued for hitting the employee.

Now if this is based on a real event, i think it would really be unlikely the racist would try to hit the black employee. At worst they would just try to talk trash, as happened in your hypothetical. I mean it is not rocket science to establish who hit who, if one person has a bloody nose or other hit and the other has nothing. (well, the racist might pull off a Fight Club, and hit himself on the nose to pin it down on the UCLP )

 

[Lexicus]

I'd like to note that I think you are the first to even mention "attack Mr Racist Dad" in terms that acknowledge it as a possibility.

I think we forum denizens - particularly denizens of a website devoted to a video game like Civ - tend not to be the type to whom physical violence occurs naturally.

From what I read of the discussion it seems that allowing UCLP to get attacked will screw him over (though I admit I'm not sure how you figure he'd lose his job for getting punched). So the logical conclusion is to throw yourself at the dad in his place, right? I still probably wouldn't do that. Mr. Racist Dad could probably beat me up anyway.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm going to put the scene in a small town in Alabama. In Seattle, Angry Dad would not assume I'm an ally.

So, we're all on our home turf, and we all know the score. Angry Dad is intimidating because he expects it will work. So far, everyone is on script.

I take a step back to indicate that this show is wasted on me, it's for the boy only. Maybe I shoot the kid a sympathetic look, maybe not, depends on how I read things. It should end here, with dad and kid stalking off. UCLP and I both give wattayagonnado shrugs; we are not brought closer by the shared experience, we are are already as close are we are ever going to be, and we both know it.

If anyone's going to go off-script, it's got to be UCLP. Maybe he steps forward, gets in-the-face. At this point, tactical details matter: Dad got a knife?, is it Saturday night?, etc.

You might be surprised at the assumptions a racist will make about you, even in Seattle. There is a very strong undercurrent in their community that runs something like "they all agree with us, they're just too politically correct or outright scared to say so."

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Hm, I suppose i am not really seeing it as plausible that anyone would be so confident he will get away from punching someone, just cause the other person is black. Let alone with a witness around. Jerks are jerks, but to do what you theorise would happen it would need to be an insane person, not merely a jerk, cause he very likely would end up in jail and sued for hitting the employee.

Now if this is based on a real event, i think it would really be unlikely the racist would try to hit the black employee. At worst they would just try to talk trash, as happened in your hypothetical. I mean it is not rocket science to establish who hit who, if one person has a bloody nose or other hit and the other has nothing. (well, the racist might pull off a Fight Club, and hit himself on the nose to pin it down on the UCLP )

In my experience getting through ANY fight completely unmarked is extremely hard, and since those marks aren't time stamped they don't provide much information in terms of "who started it."

For the record, without comment on what this hypothetical might be based on, what I said about starting fights in my young and stupid days was factual. It is surprisingly easy to start a fight and blame it on the other guy. I once got thrown out of a bar after three fights. Convincing the bouncers the first guy started it wasn't remarkable, and convincing them the third guy started it was impossible...but the fact that I successfully convinced them that the other guy started the second fight is instructive.

 

[warpus]

@Tim

Oh so

"Swing at me <your guess is no doubt accurate> and lose your job."

was supposed to be a racist term. Yeah, see, no, I completely missed that. I saw nothing at all about race in the exchange leading up to that, neither of the actors mentioned anybody's skin colour at all. So it did not register with me at all that the <your guess is no doubt accurate> was supposed to be a racist term. I think you should have made that a lot clearer.

Well, yeah, with that in mind, that changes the situation quite a bit.

It still doesn't change much of my response to the situation, though. I don't know if the guy has a knife or a gun on him. He sounds like someone with anger issues. My first instinct is to get out of the way and let the professional deal with the situation. I would be tempted to call him out for being a racist, but then again, if there's a professional there, ready to take control of the situation, it might just be wiser to get out of the way of the angered racist and let the professional do his job.

Honestly, I would probably be all: "Dude, F Off with your racism" and get out of the way. Then the professional can take his arse out, or whatever. I doubt he would lose his job, assuming he is following protocol. And I have no idea what the protocol is in that case, but in your hypothetical you have described that I have talked to this person in the past, and know that he's a professional. So I'd let him do his job, and stick around, if I thought the cops would need my testimony after the fact. Which I doubt, but you never know.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

From what I read of the discussion it seems that allowing UCLP to get attacked will screw him over (though I admit I'm not sure how you figure he'd lose his job for getting punched). So the logical conclusion is to throw yourself at the dad in his place, right? I still probably wouldn't do that. Mr. Racist Dad could probably beat me up anyway.

Well, there is a space there between getting punched and losing his job. Do we assume Racist Guy throws one punch, UCLP takes that punch, and they both walk away with UCLP having obviously done absolutely nothing? Or does that space fill up with an exchange of blows, then a walking away? Or does someone wind up taking a beating that incapacitates them before anyone walks away? That's the difficulty, because there's a big gap between "did nothing wrong" and demonstrably did nothing wrong. Technically, one could say that inherently in the aftermath here someone might say "you never should have let the shoplifting kid off with a warning in the first place."

Now, moving on to the logical conclusion that unfortunately might end up with our hypothetical dilemma dweller getting beaten up by Racist Dad...obviously a bad outcome.

What limits are appropriate on violence? What risks should someone who does intervene be expected to subject themselves to? How much latitude has Racist Dad actually earned here? Does he deserve a warning that he is not only not dealing with a friendly witness, but someone who might physically intervene? Does offering such a warning increase the risk, and is facing that additional risk necessary?

 

[warpus]

I would assume that the UCLP guy is capable of taking care of the situation without losing his job. He's been trained to deal with situations like these, right? And I'm assuming he knows the rules of engagement? I would assume he knows what he is and is not allowed to do, including self-defense.

If the racist is beating him up, hell yeah, I would jump in there and punch his lights out. Or at least try to. I'm not a fighter.

 

[civvver]

I have no idea what you are driving at. You've presented us with an impossible situation in your mind where the dad is going to hit the uclp no matter what, and whether the uclp strikes back or not he is going to get blamed and most likely lose his job. That is your premise right?

So are you asking if you as a bystander should attack the dad in order to help?

How does that help the uclp?

Or are you asking if the uclp should punch first cus he's screwed anyway?

What's the question?

 

[warpus]

Why would he lose his job? Self-defense is a thing. Surely the store in question would have cameras recording everything.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Why would he lose his job? Self-defense is a thing. Surely the store in question would have cameras recording everything.

Self defense is hard to prove. Way too hard for a corporate store manager making not all that much more to sit still through on behalf of a not much above minimum wage employee who can just be replaced instead. MAYBE there's enough of a case to keep him out of jail, but there's almost certainly not going to be enough to keep him from losing his job. A kind hearted manager might be willing to let him quit for personal reasons so that the paperwork that follows him won't be so unfavorable.

 

[warpus]

As a random bystander in this, I would definitely assume that the crazy racist trying to pick a fight is the guy who would be arrested, not the undercover employee. So in my mind I would be thinking "Okay, so this crazy racist is going to try to punch the undercover guy, the undercover guy is going to put him in a headlock or whatever, the cops are going to show up, and the crazy racist is going to be taken away. I better not get involved"

The undercover guy losing his job would not be something I'd be worried about personally, at the time. Most of my thoughts would revolve around the personal safety of me and the undercover guy, and/or any other bystanders. I'd assume that the undercover guy could take care of the situation, but if he was in trouble, I'd help him out. At first though, I would get out of the way.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I have no idea what you are driving at. You've presented us with an impossible situation in your mind where the dad is going to hit the uclp no matter what, and whether the uclp strikes back or not he is going to get blamed and most likely lose his job. That is your premise right?

So are you asking if you as a bystander should attack the dad in order to help?

How does that help the uclp?

Or are you asking if the uclp should punch first cus he's screwed anyway?

What's the question?

I didn't offer anything as "what the bystander SHOULD do." I asked what people WOULD do. People who have answered, I've mostly explored the assumptions they seem to be making in their answers. For example, I didn't say the dad was going to hit the UCLP no matter what. I just challenged people who seemed to be assuming that he wouldn't.

I also challenged people who seemed to assume that if they just walk away everything will work out fine for the UCLP, because I STRONGLY believe that if an actual physical exchange takes place, which he may have no choice about, he is gonna lose his job. There's been perhaps more give and take on this point than was warranted. Warpus, for example, seems to be committed to a view that the world is more fair than I think it is, and I should probably have just accepted that.

Warpus...take note there.

 

[BvBPL]

I would assume that the UCLP guy is capable of taking care of the situation without losing his job. He's been trained to deal with situations like these, right? And I'm assuming he knows the rules of engagement?

You might.

Others seem to have differing assessments of the fortitude of black men when it comes to insults.

 

[civvver]

I didn't offer anything as "what the bystander SHOULD do." I asked what people WOULD do. People who have answered, I've mostly explored the assumptions they seem to be making in their answers. For example, I didn't say the dad was going to hit the UCLP no matter what. I just challenged people who seemed to be assuming that he wouldn't.

I also challenged people who seemed to assume that if they just walk away everything will work out fine for the UCLP, because I STRONGLY believe that if an actual physical exchange takes place, which he may have no choice about, he is gonna lose his job. There's been perhaps more give and take on this point than was warranted. Warpus, for example, seems to be committed to a view that the world is more fair than I think it is, and I should probably have just accepted that.

Warpus...take note there.

Yes but the thread title is misleading. It says a place for violence. Then you ask what we would do in the situation. Which seems to imply you are asking if we would engage in violence.

I fail to see how engaging in violence as a bystander benefits you in any way, or helps the situation. Like if you slug the dad what happens? You probably get in trouble, the clerk might still get in trouble, I don't really get how it would help.

Also being interested in self preservation if the guy looked at me I'd just throw my hands up and say hey man I'm not getting involved in your stuff, you two need to work this out on your own.

 

[warpus]

Warpus, for example, seems to be committed to a view that the world is more fair than I think it is, and I should probably have just accepted that.

Warpus...take note there.

Take note of what?

It seems to me that you have constructed this convoluted hypothetical and thread just so that you could push some confusing narrative.

Just because the world isn't "fair" doesn't mean that it makes sense to at first get involved in a situation where a hired professional is potentially getting assaulted.

"Oh but the world isn't fair and he is going to get fired and beaten in jail and his kids are going to grow up being hobos"

Yeah and the angry racist could have a gun and he could shoot me in the face. Or it could have all been a prank and they could have instead hugged and made out and gotten married and lived happily ever after.

If there is no way for the undercover guy to do his job without getting fired, then the scenario as constructed is faulty to begin with. No action on my part could save his job under those conditions. Nor would I have even known that him losing his job was even a possibility. Like, come on man, give us some credit here. Who would expect that an employee getting attacked by a crazy guy would lead to the employee getting fired? Most reasonable people would assume that unless he crosses the line and pounds his head into the pavement until it cracks in two, that his employment would continue unabated, and that he would be commended for doing his job well.

 

[civvver]

I also struggle to see who would jump all over the crazy guy with punches and stuff. Wouldn't that make you the crazy guy?

 

[mrt144]

I also struggle to see who would jump all over the crazy guy with punches and stuff. Wouldn't that make you the crazy guy?

Right?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yes but the thread title is misleading. It says a place for violence. Then you ask what we would do in the situation. Which seems to imply you are asking if we would engage in violence.

I regretted almost immediately not including a question mark there.

I fail to see how engaging in violence as a bystander benefits you in any way, or helps the situation. Like if you slug the dad what happens? You probably get in trouble, the clerk might still get in trouble, I don't really get how it would help.

Also being interested in self preservation if the guy looked at me I'd just throw my hands up and say hey man I'm not getting involved in your stuff, you two need to work this out on your own.

Okay, "not benefiting me in any way" is a reasonable assessment. I did try to circle around with the idea that forwarding obvious racism, or allowing it to be forwarded, may have societal consequences that could come back indirectly (karma?) but I think that's already covered enough.

Not benefiting the employee is a lot hazier, to me. If a fight breaks out and he stays out of it I see no way his job is endangered...even I who see the world through the filter that the workplace doesn't really operate fairly.

But I see that that premise is not held universally. To Warpus "not getting involved in your stuff" does not mean leaving the employee in a no win situation of the racist's making. I understand where he is coming from.

Is that the same place you are coming from?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Take note of what?

That I was respectfully agreeing that given your (perfectly valid) view of the world your response made complete sense.

 

[tetley]

We have to speak in hypothetical here, because no one wants to be held liable for advocating violence or inciting a riot. No one is trying to play any mind games with that. It is only a limitation imposed by a lack of free speech; so we work within the confines of what speech is allowed.